You're perfectly entitled to post your analytical opinion of my behavior. I was just trying to have a grown-up discussion that wouldn't devolve into something like, well, this. I'm sorry if I offended you with any of my relatively short posts.

Ban you? Why would I do that?

I'm not buying the Gadsden flag racist thing at all. I mean I guess you can twist anything in such a way to make it racist but I find that a silly and unnecessary exercise in futility.

When you go that route, you end up with conclusions like this -

So if the Gadsden flag is "racist" . . .

Then Nike is "racist" for using it for the U.S. Men's Soccer Team . . .

And if Nike is "racist" for using the flag . . .

Then Obama is "racist" for supporting a "racist" corporate entity that uses the "racist" Gadsden flag

This back-and-forth point-by-point is annoying, so I'll be brief. I only said that banning me would be fascist, didn't call you one.
You clearly used "question baiting" to denigrate the opposition, you weren't really interested in someone's answers to your questions. You could've simply posted your opinion, but you posed the question instead.
Flag: http://www.realcourage.org/2010/04/t...-promote-hate/
You are still avoiding comment on the debt facts.

Libs may or may not be more educated but they sure as hell find themselves to be superior.
Both parties suck. I really struggle to understand how any thinking person can vehemently support either one.

Actually, It's you "above the fray" independents that claim to be superior, as you just did by stating that you think, but we don't. I agree with most democratic tenets, but in some areas I'm more libertarian or conservative. I've voted for repub presidents, I liked Bill Weld, I like Michael Bloomberg, not crazy about Ed Schultz.

It's easy being a Ross Perot, trashing both parties. Trying to solve problems, however, is much more difficult than complaining.

Actually, It's you "above the fray" independents that claim to be superior, as you just did by stating that you think, but we don't. I agree with most democratic tenets, but in some areas I'm more libertarian or conservative. I've voted for repub presidents, I liked Bill Weld, I like Michael Bloomberg, not crazy about Ed Schultz.

It's easy being a Ross Perot, trashing both parties. Trying to solve problems, however, is much more difficult than complaining.

Like I said just my personal observation. Never meant to suggest that I'm above the fray - I get sucked into endless debate just like the next guy. I tend lean libertarian primarily because they don't preach about, or more accurately want to legislate, social issues. Let adults to do as they wish as long as it doesn't hurt others. And they also generally are fiscally conservative without lacking empathy and compassion. I'm not an Obama fan, but it is stunning that Romney is the best the Rs could do. Stunning. Guess we should be glad Santorum went poof.

I liked Huntsman too, but how did the tea party take him down...it was Romney that kept winning...clearly the tea party is not supporting Mitt either

Yes, the tea party hates Mitt, and that's why there was a new frontrunner each month that wasn't Mitt; first Bachmann, then Trump, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, then Santorum (and all the while there was the threat of Palin). The only candidates the tea party didn't elevate to "frontrunner" against Mitt were Ron Paul and Huntsman, as neither would tow the line.

Huntsman even mocked the tea party about evolution and other issues. So what I'm saying is that the existence of the tea party prevented Huntsman, a normal, sane conservative, from getting anywhere. But of course the tea party was an utter failure, starting with Christine O'Donnell, and extending to all the losers above, who were each thrust into the spotlight by the tea party, only to be shot down one by one by the republican majority, which is nowhere near as batshit hard right christian conservative anti-science as the small but boisterous tea partiers.

Had the tea party not existed, Romney would have done just as poorly as he did in '08, and Huntsman would have been embraced as a smart pick moderate conservative to beat Obama.

Don't tread on me!

ps: I forgot Pawlenty, also killed by the tea party, but he didn't have the buzz that Huntsman had.

Actually, It's you "above the fray" independents that claim to be superior, as you just did by stating that you think, but we don't. I agree with most democratic tenets, but in some areas I'm more libertarian or conservative. I've voted for repub presidents, I liked Bill Weld, I like Michael Bloomberg, not crazy about Ed Schultz.

It's easy being a Ross Perot, trashing both parties. Trying to solve problems, however, is much more difficult than complaining.

You sound more like a left leaning independent with an inferiority complex.

You're supposed to vote democrat to let people know that their success over and above the median is not acceptable, hard work just means that a larger percentage of your income must go to the government so that it can parlay it as it sees fit, and that the big bad corporations (although sometimes corrupt in ways, humans did create them after all) that are creating jobs and paying billions of dollars in taxes to help fund the people that are content with letting the government provide for them, should be shunned by the people.

You're supposed to vote democrat to let people know that their success over and above the median is not acceptable, hard work just means that a larger percentage of your income must go to the government so that it can parlay it as it sees fit, and that the big bad corporations (although sometimes corrupt in ways, humans did create them after all) that are creating jobs and paying billions of dollars in taxes to help fund the people that are content with letting the government provide for them, should be shunned by the people.

You're supposed to vote democrat to let people know that their success over and above the median is not acceptable, hard work just means that a larger percentage of your income must go to the government so that it can parlay it as it sees fit, and that the big bad corporations (although sometimes corrupt in ways, humans did create them after all) that are creating jobs and paying billions of dollars in taxes to help fund the people that are content with letting the government provide for them, should be shunned by the people.

^ retarded, 60's era post

What part of my post, besides the admittedly 'provocative' statements like 'hard work not paying off', is not a cornerstone of democratic ideals?

What part of my post, besides the admittedly 'provocative' statements like 'hard work not paying off', is not a cornerstone of democratic ideals?

All of it. The wording of your post is made to give the impression that democrats are jerky, narrow-minded idiots. You should know this, and you should also be aware of the hundreds of threads and thousands of posts which argue against this juvenile caricature, but for some reason, you act like this is your first post ever. Kinda retarded, no?

a larger percentage of your income must go to the government.... and the big bad corporations paying billions of dollars in taxes

Let's just look at these 2 brilliant statements. The 1st was intended by you to make some point, but in fact, it merely describes our graduated tax system, whereby $20K of income is taxed at a lower rate than $50K, which is taxed at a lower rate than $150K. Do you not agree with the graduated tax system? Do you not see it's intent?

Your 2nd statement is particularly laughable, as clearly the concern is not at all what you stated, but just the opposite, wherein companies like GE pay no taxes.

Let's just look at these 2 brilliant statements. The 1st was intended by you to make some point, but in fact, it merely describes our graduated tax system, whereby $20K of income is taxed at a lower rate than $50K, which is taxed at a lower rate than $150K. Do you not agree with the graduated tax system? Do you not see it's intent?

No, it makes the point that you need look no further than your president as an example of someone that believes that the people in this country that have more than others should shoulder even more of the burden than they already are.

Quote:

Your 2nd statement is particularly laughable, as clearly the concern is not at all what you stated, but just the opposite, wherein companies like GE pay no taxes.

Democrats want to point fingers at the corporations, when by and large the corporations are practicing completely LEGAL means of accounting. You can say that they use shady accounting, and I won't argue that it goes on, but the tax code practically welcomes it because of it's complexity. Keep in mind, the U.S. already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Dems also point at the rich for being able to hire accountants and pay less in taxes. AGAIN, let's go back and look at the tax code and place the blame where it really belongs. You're using ONE company (General Electric) to try and make your point that corporations pay no taxes. Really...?

...vote democrat to let people know that their success over and above the median is not acceptable...

I'm just one little (though I do need to lose weight) democratic voice, but I don't typically vote democratic to tell successful people their success is unacceptable. Just the opposite... I admire anyone who can make it to the 1%, even the 5%, heck, even the 25%. I vote democratic to (hopefully) make sure everyone pays his/her fair share toward our democracy. Sure wealthy folks pay a lot of taxes when compared to an everyday working stiff. But when you look at the percentage of a middle-class salary that goes toward paying his/her fair share, it is higher than the percentage more wealthy folks pay. Why should a hard working middle class individual pay 25% in taxes and a wealthy person pay just 15% or less or not at all or even get money BACK!? They should both pay the same.

You are correct. But it's those "legal means of accounting" (aka tax loopholes) created and installed by republican administrations that make the percentage of taxes paid unfair to those who can't take advantage of them. This isn't difficult to understand. And I think many people from both sides would agree. Every American should pay the same percentage of his/her income toward taxes. If that means a flat tax, so be it. If that means eliminating all these tax loopholes for the elite, so be it.

No, it makes the point that you need look no further than your president as an example of someone that believes that the people in this country that have more than others should shoulder even more of the burden than they already are.

I will once again ask you to refrain from spewing partisan propaganda - as you don't know the first thing about what Obama believes, and it's completely irrelevant to this discussion - and answer the question: Do you not agree with the graduated tax system? Do you not see it's intent?